Order.- This Revision Petition is directed against an order under section 253 (2), Criminal Procedure Code, discharging the accused persons in C.C. No. 119 of 1955 on the file of the First Class Magistrate, Devikulam. The revision has already been admitted and it now comes up before me for disposal. Under section 436, Criminal Procedure Code, besides the High Court, the Sessions Judge and the District Magistrate are competent to entertain a revision and order further enquiry. It is the settled practice of almost every High Court in India that where concurrent revisional jurisdiction is conferred on Courts of different grades, the aggrieved party should approach the inferior among such Courts first and not approach the High Court directly. The Travancore-Cochin High Court has invariably been following that practice with respect to orders of discharge passed by the subordinate magistracy and that would seem to have been the practice in the Madras High Court also-See Gopobondo Behera v. Venkatesam Pantulu1, and Kasi Viswanathan v. Madan Singh2. I fail to see why a different practice should be adopted in the Kerala High Court. So far as I know the usual practice in this Court also has been not to entertain revision petitions against orders of discharge passed by Subordinate Magistrates. A recent Division Bench of the Andhra High Court consisting of Subba Rao C.J. and Satyanarayana Raju, J., had occassion to review the case-law of the different High Courts bearing on the subject and it has been held that it would be a salutary practice for the High Court not to entertain a revision ur less the aggrieved party approached an inferior Court in the first instance, and that rule should not be deviated from except on special, exceptional or extraordinary grounds-vide Ramayya v. Venkata1. In that case the revision was against an order passed under section 145, Criminal Procedure Code. It is distinctly pointed out there that in the Madras High Court, against orders of discharge passed by the Subordinate Courts the High Court seldom entertained a revision directly. As stated earlier that has been the practice in the Travancore-Cochin High Court as also in this High Court so far. In the circumstances I hold that the revision should be dismissed in limine and I older accordingly. As stated earlier that has been the practice in the Travancore-Cochin High Court as also in this High Court so far. In the circumstances I hold that the revision should be dismissed in limine and I older accordingly. Mr.T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer appearing for the petitioner pointed out to me the hardship that would be caused to his client by the petition being dismissed now on the above ground. More than eight months have elapsed since the learned Magistrate disposed of the case and it was further mentioned before me that inasmuch as the petition has been admitted I should not dispose of the revision on the preliminary ground referred to. I find it difficult to accede to that argument. Beyond doubt there are no special, exceptional or extraordinary grounds here and in the absence of such grounds as pointed out by Subba Rao. C.J.: “The mere fact that a revision has been admitted by this Court cannot make any difference in the enforcement of the rule of practice, for the party, who with open eye(ignored the practice and filed a revision direct in the High Court, cannot take advantage of his deviation from the rule of practice”. With respect I find myself in entire agreement with this approach to the question. Hence the above order. M.C.M. ----- Revision dismissed.